Nothing, but nothing warmed the cockles of his heart like the 8 billion no-bid contract given to the company he was once CEO of.
Name one other company that even offered (let alone could deliver - never mind competitively, price-wise) what Haliburton specialized in doing. Please, go ahead.
While you're hunting down that non-existent company, please also discuss on the no-bid contract awarded to the company that so gloriously just executed Healthcare.gov, despite there being all kinds of competition (to say nothing of companies with competent track records) willing and able to do the job.
Your kidding right ?
I understand that they've been working on how to decide which people will get to colonize new worlds, and which people will be stuck here. They've boiled it down to determining cognitive horsepower by looking at whether or not people can grasp the difference between "your" and "you're" - so, that's a shame, huh? Oh well!
Well, no, at least, not the last bit.
My understanding is that the NSA is a pretty large organization and that it's involved in rather a lot of signals intelligence type operations. It's doubtful, in the majority of cases, that $RANDOM_NSA_EMPLOYEE is likely to be involved in the particular scandal of the day you want addressed.
I appreciate this view isn't going to be popular here, where most commenters seem to think that $RANDOM_NSA_EMPLOYEE is guaranteed to be directly involved in reading their emails, which they're obviously doing because they want to root out subversives and blackmail them, rather than because the NSA might, I dunno, be going overboard and doing illegitimate things for a legitimate cause (like tackling terrorism or even spying on rival governments.)
Nexus devices don't have them because somebody at Google doesn't seem to like them.
Unfortunately I get the impression sometimes that there are influential people at Google who think that the iPhone is popular because you can't insert an SD card, can't change the battery, and because the battery life is crap, rather than because it's user friendly.
Yes, that WAS my point. One of them, anyway. In order to override ANY U.S. law, it first has to be ratified by the Senate.
Technically true, but remember that a treaty is usually a combination of clauses, not just one, all of which need to be agreed to. If the Senate agrees that the good clauses are something they want then they have to decide whether the bad ones are something that can be tolerated or not.
Now, based upon this, and based upon the fact the Senate can't just pass amendments or similar in the usual way, and given the fact that SOPA is pretty much what the political establishment wants in this country, do you think we stand much of a chance of seeing this treaty go unratified?
If you're really going to maintain that you can't find a bank with free checking, then you're some kind of extra special uninterested in looking. It's almost like you don't want to bother opening such an account because that would take the fun out of whining about The Man and pretending that everyone else is being paid by The Man just so The Man can keep you down. You're just embarrassing yourself.
There's only one person trying to make a point, here. You. I'm just telling you the facts. You're the one trying to pretend they don't exist, and resorting immediately to telling someone else to fuck off so you can distract from reality. What do you get out of pretending that hundreds of banks aren't out there competing for your business? Is it really that important to you that prop up your silly world view by pretending that trivially demonstrable basic facts aren't real? Do you understand how that makes you sound? Let me guess. You also think evolution isn't real, right? Get a grip.
How much do they pay you to post this shit, really?
Ah, yes. The classic ad-hominem-strawman combo! Anything to avoid substance, of course, right?
We just talked about this. Banks make money putting money to work. That's how mine make money, and it's why I chose them. BofA has all sorts of accounts without fees. Walk in, talk to a branch manager, and get one. Of course, you'd have to get off your but and put aside the shrill whining for a few minutes, and I know that's upsetting to you. Your mom can drive you.
When the monthly charge for a checking account with 500USD was only 6$ and paper checks and phone support were free, I might have believed this bullshit.
I'm sorry that you're too lazy to shop around, but not too lazy to troll here. I've got several checking accounts, spread around four different banks. None of them carry a monthly fee. None of them charge me anything to write checks (though I do have to pay to get checks printed, which I do very cheaply at Costco), and none of them have ever charged me to talk to them, because I've only ever had to talk to them about opening or closing accounts, or about something they wanted to talk about. Everything else is self-service via dial-up or online, and via mobile apps, and costs nothing.
What part of the "infrastructure" do you think they'll be claiming to provide for previously free-over-public-network-lines bitcoin transactions?
Gee, I don't know
Charge you to hold it
You mean, charge you to provide the service of holding it, which includes people, infrastructure, legal and regulatory costs, and more.
charge you to transfer it
You mean, charge you to provide the infrastructure, support, people, reporting, and security around transferring it.
charge you to talk to phone support rep
Right. Charge you for making a person's time available to you when they already provide no-charge mechanisms to get the same information by other means.
gamble with it on the side
Sure, interest rates are low right now. But where do you think interest comes from? How do you think loans happen?
Well perhaps, but to play Devil's advocate: this isn't a game.
There are two parts to DRM when combined with an anti-circumvention law. The first is the one that exists anyway: to attempt to make it as difficult as practically possible for someone to gain unrestricted access to the raw content. The other - which the DMCA (and its apparent German equivalent) adds - is to add legal liabilities for creating, possessing and/or using the tools, however easy, that break that encryption, should they ever come into being.
Us nerds have a tendency to misread laws and assume that rather than it being a reflection of the intent of the authors, that the language used is arbitrary and written by dolts to be interpreted in the widest possible context. Specifically we look at words like "effective" and rather than interpreting it in the context of the rest of the law, we go off on tangents and ask whether something is effective using other definitions within different contexts.
Is, for example, CSS effective? Well, I'd argue it is in context. It requires you use a specialized tool, designed specifically to break CSS, in order to access the content. It meets the definition in context. It doesn't meet the definition if you change the subject and say "Well, in 1998 it protected content, but does it now? Is it easy to find the tools needed to circumvent it?", but that's not the definition of effective that's implied by the context of the legislation - which is why better lawyers than us are not making that claim when protecting, say, Real Networks.
As for ROT-13.... well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My guess is it wouldn't, because ROT-13 doesn't require knowledge of any secrets beyond the fact it's being used to begin with, and the "tool" used to decrypt it is already built-in to a billion email, USENET, and so on clients. At the very least, if SuperdooperRayVD 4K discs in 2020 are encrypted using ROT-13, they'd have great difficulty persuading judges that millions of pre-existing USENET clients from the 1990s are illegal.
So yeah...delivery drones will potentially reduce the delivery time of those amazon packages to 30 minutes...for a cost of $5,000 per package
Are you assuming that each drone will self destruct after dropping of a new SSD drive in the rooftop mailroom chute at an office building? I expect they're planning to use the same drone more than once. Sort of like we use UPS trucks at least three or four times before destroying them.